Monday 21 October 2013

MARITIME ORGANISATION BAN PIBs FANTASTIC NEWS

Below is a press release from the International Maritime Organisation regarding the ban on the chemicals that killed so many seabirds, great news and very quick, 


Seabird death chemical to be banned
Wildlife charities have welcomed the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) swift action to ban ships across the world from discharging all forms of high viscosity polyisobutylene (PIB) into the sea during tank cleaning operations. PIB was the chemical responsible for the deaths of over 4000 seabirds on the south west coast earlier this year.

The tragedy, the largest marine pollution incident of its kind in the region since Torrey Canyon, shocked thousands of people.

At a meeting of the IMO’s working group on the Evaluation of Safety and Pollution Hazards of Chemicals (ESPH) in London today, it was decided to change the classification of high viscosity PIBs to require full tank prewash and disposal of all residues at port and prohibit any discharge at sea from 2014. This will also apply to new “highly-reactive” forms of PIB, which are currently being transported un-assessed.

The recommendation to do this had been made by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) on behalf of the UK Government, following vigorous campaigning by wildlife charities and the public.

Alec Taylor, Marine Policy Officer for the RSPB said; “We are delighted with the action taken by the IMO. The global trade in PIB products is increasing and with it the risks to our precious marine environment. Today’s global ban on the deliberate discharge of high viscosity PIBs into our seas is a real step forward and one that we hope will end this particular pollution threat to seabirds and other marine life.”

Between February and April this year over 4000 seabirds, of at least 18 species, mainly guillemots, were washed up on beaches from Cornwall to Dorset in two separate incidents. The majority were dead, but some were alive and taken for treatment by the RSPCA at their West Hatch Centre. The subsequent MCA investigation revealed that the birds had been smothered with high viscosity PIB. The same substance was also responsible for the deaths of hundreds of seabirds off the Dutch coast in March 2010.

RSPCA senior wildlife scientist Adam Grogan said: "We welcome this decision. Our staff worked around the clock washing and treating these poor birds in January and April and it was heartbreaking seeing the pitiful state they were in.  Hopefully this will help stop incidents like these happening again, and save wildlife from suffering and dying like this in the future.”

Joan Edwards, Head of Living Seas for The Wildlife Trusts, said:  "We welcome today's ban. The thousands of dead and dying seabirds witnessed earlier this year were the most visible victims of mismanagement. Impacts on other parts of marine life support systems may have been just as widespread, and more serious. Not to mention the impacts on tourism of dead seabirds on the beach - particularly pressing in south-west counties which rely so heavily on summer visitors."

Peter Burgess, Devon Wildlife Trust's Conservation Advocacy Manager said; "This is an important decision for wildlife. It's pleasing to see how quickly the IMO has acted and heartening to hear that local people's concerns have helped build momentum towards achieving this. However, we do see the PIB incidents of 2013 as a wake-up call. Dead and dying seabirds washed up on some of the south-west's most popular beaches were hard to ignore. But how many unseen and unreported activities are damaging our precious marine wildlife in undersea habitats that are almost completely unprotected by law?"

The public response to the tragedy was significant, with more than 25,000 people signing petitions organised by 38 Degrees and Avaaz calling for a ban on the discharge of PIB.

Alec Taylor from RSPB added; “There was a lot of hard work by RSPB, other wildlife charities and the MCA, with support from several MPs on the south west coast. But the huge support we received from members of the public, many of whom experienced the effects of this pollution first hand as they walked the beaches, was perhaps the clinching factor in achieving such a quick decision to prevent discharges of harmful PIBs.”

ENDS

Saturday 5 October 2013

HARBOUR ELECTIONS ON THE 17TH OCTOBER, 2013

Dear Electorate,   I once again but myself forward for the Harbour Commissioners Elections on which i have acted as a commissioners since 2001.   Having been a commercial fisherman for 25 years working from the port, this part of my life is something that i have always not only enjoyed but is part of my families history going back 14 generations in the area.    The harbour is the heart of the community and it is why so many people wish to come to visit and live in Looe, it is governed by an Act of Parliament.  It is an important part of Cornwall's fishing community and a jewel in the crown of South East Cornwall.    As such it is a major economic driver for the area and helps sustain many local jobs, the harbour and it's success is important to the people of Looe and the area.

When i first became a commissioner it had depleted funds and some poor infrastructure and buildings.   Over that period i have been very proud to play my part in the regeneration of much of the harbours fabric but the success of many of the towns fishermen and decommissioning of some of the fishing fleet the numbers of working boats has decreased.  Recent discussions have, i believe put in place the seeds for a bright future for the towns fish market, which i hope will bring new boats to the town and it's market.  Also the new development in West Looe The Quayside Centre (Mally's Shed) has brought new vigour to the business of West Looe and a asset for the town and it's people.

What will the future bring, well some of the quay walls are in need of some works to keep them safe and the Sardine Factory needs some major works.   With it's sound finances the harbour is well placed to assist the town in holding and helping with events to bring people and business to the town.  The key element  for the future is looking at an outer breakwater or harbour to aid with the flood defences and economic growth for the town.   It is necessary to develop plans and consult with the residents so we leave a town that is not to succumb to a storm as it did in the 1840s and why the Harbour Commissioners were formed.   People often believe that they can become a Harbour Commissioner and change the way the harbour is run but the commissioners are governed by a Act of Parliament and Port Marine Code so what you can do is somewhat restricted.   But i have always put the town, it's people and the economy of it at the forefront of my involvement.

Just to give you a flavour of why to commissioners were formed i am including an abstract from the Corporation  Chronicles for East Looe

Shortly before 1848 East Looe was threatened with destruction by an irruption of the sea, which disturbed by the erection of wharves within the mouth of the river, had made a large breach in the shore at Churchend.   The harbour was injured in many places by boulders and rocks in it's bed, the quays were inconvenient and dilapidated, and the narrow time eaten bridge of fourteen arches, with the steep approach from West Looe, has become ruinous and dangerous.   At this time the place had to depend on the exertions of it's inhabitants and neighbours for existence and improvement.  Mr J Buller, of Morval and his family, always evinced an interest in it's welfare, and with his advise and that of his nephew, the member for Liskeard and the Rector of Lanreath, it was decided to seek Parliamentary powers to improve the port Under the Act which was entitles "the East and West Looe Harbour and Bridge Act" thirteen commissioners were elected, viz;- The Mayors of East and West Looe and Liskeard, the Treasurer of the Looe and Liskeard Canal, six persons of Looe, St Martins and Talland, and three from Liskeard.  The board caused a breakwater to be constructed at Churchend and a groin at the mouth of the river, and this fully repaired the former injuries from the sea.   New and convenient quays were built and others repaired and altered.   The harbour was deepened by removal of rocks and stones from the bed, in consequence of these improvements much material prosperity was experienced by the inhabitants.

This abstract shows that the protection of the town relies on the harbour being maintained and kept in order, whilst getting this right in the future it will assist with the problem of flooding and drive the local ecomomy.  

Thank you for reading this and i hope it helps making your choices for the forthcoming election

Regards Armand Toms